Slashdot Mirror

If the police are arresting you, you're supposed to let them. If they were in the wrong, then you try to take legal action against them

Read the Bad Elk decision, which notes "If the officer had no right to arrest, the other party might resist the illegal attempt to arrest him, using no more force than was absolutely necessary to repel the assault constituting the attempt to arrest." The Court explictly noted as recently as 1948 that "One has an undoubted right to resist an unlawful arrest, and courts will uphold the right of resistance in proper cases." However, it is true that the Court has been less friendly to this (and most other rights of citizens) in more recent times.

Not, to be clear, that I'm suggesting shooting cops in a situation like this, as happened in the Bad Elk case.

But, that's beside the point. Fleeing is not actively resisting arrest - especially if a person has not been lawfully arrested. Fleeing may, depending on local statute, constitute a form of offense that is placed under the heading resisting arrest, or it may be an offense under seperate heading, but it is a very different offense than active resistance, i.e. fighting against cops.

And pulling away from an assault by cops who don't first announce an arrest and give a reasonable chance to comply, which seems to be the case here, isn't even fleeing. It's instinctual human behavior, which cannot be criminalized.

They can't sit there all day with him on the ground until he complies.

All day? No. A couple of minutes, until everyone's adrenaline has had a chance to cool? Sure. This isn't some maniac who was waving a knife and presenting a clear and present danger to public safety - in which case I'd say taze him as much as needed. This was a guy accused of hogging the mic. (And unjustly at that, since the speaker didn't object.)

He has already resisted arrest and shown himself to be erratic, so they have to take him in.

Nonsense. He asked some perfectly valid questions, drawing applause from some in the audience, and even Kerry wanted to answer. Yes, he was somewhat nervous - many people are nervous about public speaking. Suddenly, in the middle of his final question, he was seized from behind. Rather than defending himself by striking his assailants - which many people would have done instinctively - he maintained enough calm to simply pull away and challenge them verbally. That's not erratic or dangerous. The cops then continue to escalate the situation by pointing a taser, a potentially lethal weapon, at him.

While they've got him pinned, he asks them to just let him leave. The sane thing to do is form a cordon behind him, let him up, and walk him outside, write him a citation for the "disturbing the peace" charge, and everyone goes home happy.

At the same time, presidential candidates are big targets, so law enforcement take their security pretty seriously.

Kerry's running for President again? News to me.

When you've already demonstrated you'll ignore instructions from police and actively resist them in a public place, you are a threat.

"Actively resist?" No one was actively resisting. Actively resisting would have been hitting, choking, biting, or otherwise using force, not merely pulling away from one's assailants.

Apparently by your standards, followers of Gandhi or King who raised their arms to block the blows of clubs would be a "threat".

"Potentially lethal force, or the use of torture, is justified only to end a threat, not to bring someone "under control"."

Nope. And again, whether you agree or not means nothing.

So under what sort of ethical system is potentially lethal force, or the use of torture, justfied in the absence of a threat?

Maybe they wouldn't have to pretend their rights got trampled if they didn't A) break the law and B) ignore a lawfuly given instruction.

Meyer didn't break any law; the cops were the criminals here.

There was nothing "lawful" about the behavior of the cops at any point. He asks his question about "Skull and Bones", and they simply grab him and start to drag him off. No verbal request to leave. That's an assault.

And let me point out that under the Bad Elk precedent, a citizen has the right to resist illegal arrest by any means necessary. As recently as 1948, the Court noted in it opinion that " One has an undoubted right to resist an unlawful arrest, and courts will uphold the right of resistance in proper cases." However, the court has been less friendly to this right (and most other rights) in more recent times.

I know, you've been so conditioned into playing "follow the leader" that you'll find the idea of a right to stand up to LEO abuses inconceivable...

If you have a real argument make it, but save the "thugs" "torture" and "assault" bullshit for your friends, I'm not disconnected enough from reality to swallow it.

See, that's exactly what I mean. Inflicting great pain to get someone to do what you want is torture. That you would question that electric shock to get someone to shut up qualifies as torture shows you've been so conditioned that you can't think straight.

Supergood-ape, with your unquestioning obedience it seems you would have made a fine slave-catcher back in the day. And I'm sorry to see that.

Consumers' rights are based on the general idea of "fair use," which isn't a right defined in law. Instead, it's a general defense against claims of copyright infringement. If the recording industry were to sue an individual for copying music from their CDs onto their iPod, they would likely lose because the idea of fair use generally determines that consumers can use their own music in reasonable ways.

Unfortunately, fair use has not been upheld in clear court precedents or in law to the point where it can really be called a right. This leaves things enshrouded in a grey fog where consumers assume that anything they can do with "their music" is fine, while the music industry seeks to find new ways to sell its products.

Let's dissect those two paragraphs. A simple Google search yields the following reference as its first result: http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl102.html

Let me quote the salient points from the U.S. Copyright Office's website:

One of the more important limitations is the doctrine of "fair use." Although fair use was not mentioned in the previous copyright law, the doctrine has developed through a substantial number of court decisions over the years. This doctrine has been codified in section 107 of the copyright law.

Section 107 contains a list of the various purposes for which the reproduction of a particular work may be considered "fair," such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Section 107 also sets out four factors to be considered in determining whether or not a particular use is fair[...]

So, what have we learned about TFA?

1. The author of TFA claims that fair use is not actually defined in law. This is contradicted by Section 107 of Title 17, U.S. Code. Section 107 even helpfully enumerates examples of fair use.
2. The author of TFA claims that there have been no clear court precedents upholding fair use. In fact, there have been many, too numerous to list here, but I'll simply mention the landmark case of the RIAA vs. Diamond Multimedia which established that the RIO, and all subsequent MP3 players, are non-infringing devices used for space shifting. It is because of this legal precedent that we have a market segment for MP3 players at all.
3. The author of TFA totally misses one of the oldest and best-known prior legal precedents establishing the right to time-shift and space-shift, the infamous Betamax case, Sony vs. Universal City Studios
4. The author apparently doesn't know how to do basic fact checking using a resource like Google.

The article was great right up until the section on fair use, and I couldn't really stomach reading the rest of the article because the author clearly didn't bother checking any facts. Whether that's due to laziness or some twisted personal interpretation of U.S. copyright law, I couldn't say. I thought maybe this article was written from a European/British perspective (since fair use is not an established right in the U.K., for example), but no, he's using American spellings and seems to be writing from an American (albeit ignorant) POV. Sad, really.

The info about the dispute between Apple and NBC is interesting, as it explains Apple's comments about needing to charge almos

I would say that you definitely have a right to ignore the ads. You might also have the right to block them from your view before you can actually see them. but at least let the server shove them your way first.

I have been trying to figure out why I am stuck on that issue. For some reason it just seems like the proper thing to do, they present something, I should take it as a whole and not let them know their efforts are only half appreciated. I think the closest match would actually be when those video stores where pre-filtering movies, re-recording them, and you would send in a legit copy that you purchased so they would send you the clean version they made. This model lost in court but the strange thing is, the judge said that if they (the consumers) wanted to edit it before watching and then watch the clean versions, that was perfectly ok.

I don't know anymore. I would say that I am still against putting an ad blocker into a web browser and turning it on by default. If someone doesn't want the ads, it is really easy to get around it with a google search (or any search engine for that matter).

I believe it's called the Fourth Amendment. More generally, the Supreme Court has found that without a right to privacy, various parts of the Bill of Rights are without force and that, therefore, the Bill of Rights implies a guarantee of privacy; the famous penumbra of specific guarantees of the Bill of Rights, much hated by authoritarians. See GRISWOLD v. CONNECTICUT, 381 U.S. 479 (1965).

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcode.pl?c ode=TX&ls=stat&law=5&art=075&frame=right2

Plus, it's just not a search as the Supreme Court (in the line of cases starting with Mapp v. Ohio) has repeatedly defined it. Search, for 4th Amendment purposes, means only searches by governmental actors or those directed by governmental actors.

Depends upon the local and state laws. In general, many municipalities, and some states, have passed laws which grant shopkeepers certain rights to detain and search customers, when they reasonably suspect that a theft has taken place.

You, the detained customer, do not have to cooperate with the search or detainment; however, the shopkeeper may request police assistance. The circumstances will vary from case to case, so it is generally up to a jury to decide whether a shopkeeper has been reasonable in their search and/or detention of a suspected shoplifter.

In Van Zante and Jacobson (appellants) vs. Wal-Mart Stores Inc, City of Coralville, Iowa, et alia, the appeals court reversed the lower court's decision to throw out the plaintiffs' false imprisonment case, granting clearance for a jury trial.

In Bathe and Hedge vs. Wal-Mart Stores Inc, the court found that Wal-Mart had acted reasonably in detaining and searching the plaintiffs.

Depends upon the local and state laws. In general, many municipalities, and some states, have passed laws which grant shopkeepers certain rights to detain and search customers, when they reasonably suspect that a theft has taken place.

You, the detained customer, do not have to cooperate with the search or detainment; however, the shopkeeper may request police assistance. The circumstances will vary from case to case, so it is generally up to a jury to decide whether a shopkeeper has been reasonable in their search and/or detention of a suspected shoplifter.

In Van Zante and Jacobson (appellants) vs. Wal-Mart Stores Inc, City of Coralville, Iowa, et alia, the appeals court reversed the lower court's decision to throw out the plaintiffs' false imprisonment case, granting clearance for a jury trial.

In Bathe and Hedge vs. Wal-Mart Stores Inc, the court found that Wal-Mart had acted reasonably in detaining and searching the plaintiffs.

http://www.cacd.uscourts.gov/CACD/Guestbook.nsf/Co mment?OpenForm

This is the only web-based contact method I could find- I wanted to email the judge directly. Perhaps I'll have to send a registered letter?

http://pview.findlaw.com/view/2365671_1?noconfirm= 0

I shouldn't even have to post this, because anyone still spewing the above bullshit obviously already knows the answer and is just blowing smoke, but just in case anyone else was wondering: Replacing all the political appointees as part of coming into office is traditional. Replacing in the middle of a term, only those attorney generals who prosecuted Republicans, or refused to prosecute Democrats is what's scandalous here. The Justice Department had a long history of being largely independant and non-partisan, and that is what was ruined by the Bush administration. That is not normal, nor expected, and that is why morale at the Justice Department is at an all-time low, with scores of senior staff leaving. Allowing that to continue would result in a country without rule of law, only political persecution of the party not in power, by the party in power.

Case 1
* FOX doesn't pay their taxes. "Don't worry about it" says Congress. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/special_report/1999/02/ 99/e-cyclopedia/302366.stm http://www.vision.net.au/~apaterson/politics/econo mist_murdoch.htm Presidential Candidates eagerly take handouts from FOX http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070802/ap_on_el_pr/ed wards_news_corp
* Guy videos FOX's Simpson movie. Goes to Jail. http://www.smh.com.au/news/web/simpsons-filmed-on- mobile/2007/08/17/1186857730452.html

Case 2
* SONY regularly cracks the security on customer's computers. No prosecution.
* Some guy does it. 21 months jail. http://www.sophos.com/pressoffice/news/articles/20 05/05/va_threatkrew2.html
* Congress decide life jail for hackers would be better: http://www.wired.com/politics/law/news/2002/02/507 08

Case 3
* Disney Wants the law changed. Law gets changed. http://writ.news.findlaw.com/commentary/20020305_s prigman.html http://dir.salon.com/story/tech/feature/2002/02/21 /web_copyright/index.html
* What's Congress done for you lately? Health Insurance? Told their own kids to enlist?

Says Graham Cluley, senior technology consultant for Sophos. "There is a growing trend for hacking gangs to break into innocent people's computers to spy, to steal, and to cause damage. This sentence sends out a strong message to other hackers that infecting others with Trojan horses and other malware is not acceptable." So Justice Department: You going to do anything about this, or are you corporate shills too?

Would it not be the same as searching the garbage you put out on the street?

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?c ourt=US&vol=486&invol=35

Because there can be no conviction if he refuses to press charges. It's only a theft if the property owner claims that it wasn't being given away. But laws vary.

This article shows how you can be arrested in the UK. Here is an email (on the interesting-people mailing list, google cache) about a case in Canada where a man was convicted for "war driving." But apparently, in the US (as of 2002) there is only an FBI advisory - from the politech mailing list

Perhaps someone with more legal knowledge can reply and update us on the state of the law in the US. And note that I'm not talking about DMCA violations if the connection is WEP or WPA-encrypted. I'm looking just at the "wireless theft" part.

presidential elections are a state matter

Rove successfully manipulated public opinion, yes, but he did so with innuendo, lies, and manipulation.

As if the other side never does that? Please.

I take offense at wanting to count votes that blatantly violate election law.

It wasn't "Gore's team", it was "one person on Gore's team".

It's self-regulating. The speculators go after high-risk stuff. If they go too high-risk, they lose all of their money and cease to be speculators.

One of the reasons that they are so successful here is that there is a relatively low stigma associated with failure in the US.

onsider bankruptcy for example, that is a form of "limited liability" as it applies to the individual.

Bad form to reply to myself, but here's links to relevant SCOTUS cases. Overall, the tone is about when one has a reasonable expectation of privacy.

Note that the links may require registration (findlaw seems to be a little random about that). You can also just google the case names.

SILVERMAN v. UNITED STATES, 365 U.S. 505 (1961)
----------
Ruling that using a "spike mike" to push against adjoining wall to listen in was illegal. The ruling makes a big deal that nobody expects a spike mike to be used, and that the people who were being listened to had a reasonable expectation of privacy.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?c ourt=US&vol=365&invol=505

KATZ v. UNITED STATES, 389 U.S. 347 (1967)
----------
Ruling that bugging a public phone booth without a warrant was illegal. The ruling makes a big deal that although the phone booth was transparent, it still blocks sound, and it was for the purpose of not being overhead that one enters a phone booth. Hence, there is a reasonable expectation of privacy.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?c ourt=US&vol=389&invol=347

DOW CHEMICAL CO. v. UNITED STATES, 476 U.S. 227 (1986)
----------
Ruling that a 2000 acre industrial site is not like the curtilage of a house, but is more like an open field, so using commercially available aerial photography is not illegal. The ruling considers that since anybody could overfly it isn't a big deal, and that the area is particularly large and open so one really can't expect privacy. The ruling briefly mentions that if advanced satellites were used, the search could have been illegal.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?c ourt=us&vol=476&invol=227

CALIFORNIA v. CIRAOLO, 476 U.S. 207 (1986)
----------
Ruling that naked eye observation from 1000 ft in an airplane in public airspace is not illegal. The ruling considers that anybody could fly over at 1000 ft, and that overflights aren't unusual, hence there shouldn't be an expectation of privacy.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?n avby=search&court=US&case=/us/476/207.html

FLORIDA v. RILEY, 488 U.S. 445 (1989)
----------
Ruling that naked eye observation from 400 ft in a helicopter in public airspace is not illegal. The ruling seems to make a big deal that nobody mentioned that 400ft helicopter overflights are unusual, and leaves open the question that if somebody did bring evidence that they were unusual, that the search may have been deemed illegal. However, given that anybody could have flown a helicopter at 400ft, it is legal.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?n avby=search&court=US&case=/us/488/445.html

Bad form to reply to myself, but here's links to relevant SCOTUS cases. Overall, the tone is about when one has a reasonable expectation of privacy.

Note that the links may require registration (findlaw seems to be a little random about that). You can also just google the case names.

SILVERMAN v. UNITED STATES, 365 U.S. 505 (1961)
----------
Ruling that using a "spike mike" to push against adjoining wall to listen in was illegal. The ruling makes a big deal that nobody expects a spike mike to be used, and that the people who were being listened to had a reasonable expectation of privacy.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?c ourt=US&vol=365&invol=505

KATZ v. UNITED STATES, 389 U.S. 347 (1967)
----------
Ruling that bugging a public phone booth without a warrant was illegal. The ruling makes a big deal that although the phone booth was transparent, it still blocks sound, and it was for the purpose of not being overhead that one enters a phone booth. Hence, there is a reasonable expectation of privacy.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?c ourt=US&vol=389&invol=347

DOW CHEMICAL CO. v. UNITED STATES, 476 U.S. 227 (1986)
----------
Ruling that a 2000 acre industrial site is not like the curtilage of a house, but is more like an open field, so using commercially available aerial photography is not illegal. The ruling considers that since anybody could overfly it isn't a big deal, and that the area is particularly large and open so one really can't expect privacy. The ruling briefly mentions that if advanced satellites were used, the search could have been illegal.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?c ourt=us&vol=476&invol=227

CALIFORNIA v. CIRAOLO, 476 U.S. 207 (1986)
----------
Ruling that naked eye observation from 1000 ft in an airplane in public airspace is not illegal. The ruling considers that anybody could fly over at 1000 ft, and that overflights aren't unusual, hence there shouldn't be an expectation of privacy.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?n avby=search&court=US&case=/us/476/207.html

FLORIDA v. RILEY, 488 U.S. 445 (1989)
----------
Ruling that naked eye observation from 400 ft in a helicopter in public airspace is not illegal. The ruling seems to make a big deal that nobody mentioned that 400ft helicopter overflights are unusual, and leaves open the question that if somebody did bring evidence that they were unusual, that the search may have been deemed illegal. However, given that anybody could have flown a helicopter at 400ft, it is legal.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?n avby=search&court=US&case=/us/488/445.html

Bad form to reply to myself, but here's links to relevant SCOTUS cases. Overall, the tone is about when one has a reasonable expectation of privacy.

Note that the links may require registration (findlaw seems to be a little random about that). You can also just google the case names.

SILVERMAN v. UNITED STATES, 365 U.S. 505 (1961)
----------
Ruling that using a "spike mike" to push against adjoining wall to listen in was illegal. The ruling makes a big deal that nobody expects a spike mike to be used, and that the people who were being listened to had a reasonable expectation of privacy.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?c ourt=US&vol=365&invol=505

KATZ v. UNITED STATES, 389 U.S. 347 (1967)
----------
Ruling that bugging a public phone booth without a warrant was illegal. The ruling makes a big deal that although the phone booth was transparent, it still blocks sound, and it was for the purpose of not being overhead that one enters a phone booth. Hence, there is a reasonable expectation of privacy.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?c ourt=US&vol=389&invol=347

DOW CHEMICAL CO. v. UNITED STATES, 476 U.S. 227 (1986)
----------
Ruling that a 2000 acre industrial site is not like the curtilage of a house, but is more like an open field, so using commercially available aerial photography is not illegal. The ruling considers that since anybody could overfly it isn't a big deal, and that the area is particularly large and open so one really can't expect privacy. The ruling briefly mentions that if advanced satellites were used, the search could have been illegal.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?c ourt=us&vol=476&invol=227

CALIFORNIA v. CIRAOLO, 476 U.S. 207 (1986)
----------
Ruling that naked eye observation from 1000 ft in an airplane in public airspace is not illegal. The ruling considers that anybody could fly over at 1000 ft, and that overflights aren't unusual, hence there shouldn't be an expectation of privacy.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?n avby=search&court=US&case=/us/476/207.html

FLORIDA v. RILEY, 488 U.S. 445 (1989)
----------
Ruling that naked eye observation from 400 ft in a helicopter in public airspace is not illegal. The ruling seems to make a big deal that nobody mentioned that 400ft helicopter overflights are unusual, and leaves open the question that if somebody did bring evidence that they were unusual, that the search may have been deemed illegal. However, given that anybody could have flown a helicopter at 400ft, it is legal.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?n avby=search&court=US&case=/us/488/445.html

Bad form to reply to myself, but here's links to relevant SCOTUS cases. Overall, the tone is about when one has a reasonable expectation of privacy.

Note that the links may require registration (findlaw seems to be a little random about that). You can also just google the case names.

SILVERMAN v. UNITED STATES, 365 U.S. 505 (1961)
----------
Ruling that using a "spike mike" to push against adjoining wall to listen in was illegal. The ruling makes a big deal that nobody expects a spike mike to be used, and that the people who were being listened to had a reasonable expectation of privacy.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?c ourt=US&vol=365&invol=505

KATZ v. UNITED STATES, 389 U.S. 347 (1967)
----------
Ruling that bugging a public phone booth without a warrant was illegal. The ruling makes a big deal that although the phone booth was transparent, it still blocks sound, and it was for the purpose of not being overhead that one enters a phone booth. Hence, there is a reasonable expectation of privacy.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?c ourt=US&vol=389&invol=347

DOW CHEMICAL CO. v. UNITED STATES, 476 U.S. 227 (1986)
----------
Ruling that a 2000 acre industrial site is not like the curtilage of a house, but is more like an open field, so using commercially available aerial photography is not illegal. The ruling considers that since anybody could overfly it isn't a big deal, and that the area is particularly large and open so one really can't expect privacy. The ruling briefly mentions that if advanced satellites were used, the search could have been illegal.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?c ourt=us&vol=476&invol=227

CALIFORNIA v. CIRAOLO, 476 U.S. 207 (1986)
----------
Ruling that naked eye observation from 1000 ft in an airplane in public airspace is not illegal. The ruling considers that anybody could fly over at 1000 ft, and that overflights aren't unusual, hence there shouldn't be an expectation of privacy.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?n avby=search&court=US&case=/us/476/207.html

FLORIDA v. RILEY, 488 U.S. 445 (1989)
----------
Ruling that naked eye observation from 400 ft in a helicopter in public airspace is not illegal. The ruling seems to make a big deal that nobody mentioned that 400ft helicopter overflights are unusual, and leaves open the question that if somebody did bring evidence that they were unusual, that the search may have been deemed illegal. However, given that anybody could have flown a helicopter at 400ft, it is legal.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?n avby=search&court=US&case=/us/488/445.html

Bad form to reply to myself, but here's links to relevant SCOTUS cases. Overall, the tone is about when one has a reasonable expectation of privacy.

Note that the links may require registration (findlaw seems to be a little random about that). You can also just google the case names.

SILVERMAN v. UNITED STATES, 365 U.S. 505 (1961)
----------
Ruling that using a "spike mike" to push against adjoining wall to listen in was illegal. The ruling makes a big deal that nobody expects a spike mike to be used, and that the people who were being listened to had a reasonable expectation of privacy.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?c ourt=US&vol=365&invol=505

KATZ v. UNITED STATES, 389 U.S. 347 (1967)
----------
Ruling that bugging a public phone booth without a warrant was illegal. The ruling makes a big deal that although the phone booth was transparent, it still blocks sound, and it was for the purpose of not being overhead that one enters a phone booth. Hence, there is a reasonable expectation of privacy.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?c ourt=US&vol=389&invol=347

DOW CHEMICAL CO. v. UNITED STATES, 476 U.S. 227 (1986)
----------
Ruling that a 2000 acre industrial site is not like the curtilage of a house, but is more like an open field, so using commercially available aerial photography is not illegal. The ruling considers that since anybody could overfly it isn't a big deal, and that the area is particularly large and open so one really can't expect privacy. The ruling briefly mentions that if advanced satellites were used, the search could have been illegal.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?c ourt=us&vol=476&invol=227

CALIFORNIA v. CIRAOLO, 476 U.S. 207 (1986)
----------
Ruling that naked eye observation from 1000 ft in an airplane in public airspace is not illegal. The ruling considers that anybody could fly over at 1000 ft, and that overflights aren't unusual, hence there shouldn't be an expectation of privacy.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?n avby=search&court=US&case=/us/476/207.html

FLORIDA v. RILEY, 488 U.S. 445 (1989)
----------
Ruling that naked eye observation from 400 ft in a helicopter in public airspace is not illegal. The ruling seems to make a big deal that nobody mentioned that 400ft helicopter overflights are unusual, and leaves open the question that if somebody did bring evidence that they were unusual, that the search may have been deemed illegal. However, given that anybody could have flown a helicopter at 400ft, it is legal.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?n avby=search&court=US&case=/us/488/445.html

I take offense at wanting to count votes that blatantly violate election law.

Section 3406. Balloting materials under the Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act

            (a) Balloting materials under the Uniformed and Overseas Citizens
        Absentee Voting Act (individually or in bulk) -
                (1) shall be carried expeditiously and free of postage; and
                (2) may be mailed at a post office established outside the
            United States under section 406 of this title, unless such
            mailing is prohibited by treaty or other international agreement
            of the United States.

            (b) As used in this section, the term "balloting materials" has
        the meaning given that term in section 107 of the Uniformed and
        Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act.

Court: U.S. 11th Circuit Court of Appeals
Topic: Civil Procedure, Elections
Title: HARRIS v. FLORIDA ELECTIONS COMISSION
Date: 12/11/00
Case Number: 00-16423
Summary: Plaintiffs' request to nullify absentee military ballots denied because it would violate Paragraph 7 of Rule 1S-2.013 of the Florida Administrative Code and a federal court order on how presidential elections in Florida must accommodate Florida residents.

I take offense at wanting to count votes that blatantly violate election law.

Section 3406. Balloting materials under the Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act

            (a) Balloting materials under the Uniformed and Overseas Citizens
        Absentee Voting Act (individually or in bulk) -
                (1) shall be carried expeditiously and free of postage; and
                (2) may be mailed at a post office established outside the
            United States under section 406 of this title, unless such
            mailing is prohibited by treaty or other international agreement
            of the United States.

            (b) As used in this section, the term "balloting materials" has
        the meaning given that term in section 107 of the Uniformed and
        Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act.

Court: U.S. 11th Circuit Court of Appeals
Topic: Civil Procedure, Elections
Title: HARRIS v. FLORIDA ELECTIONS COMISSION
Date: 12/11/00
Case Number: 00-16423
Summary: Plaintiffs' request to nullify absentee military ballots denied because it would violate Paragraph 7 of Rule 1S-2.013 of the Florida Administrative Code and a federal court order on how presidential elections in Florida must accommodate Florida residents.

My Verizon Treo 650 came with the default of transmitting its location data all the time. Fortunately, there was a (somewhat buried) option to turn it to "911 only". Of course, if you read the above link, you'll see that the cell company can get a pretty good handle on my location if they wanted just by triangulation anyway.

Oh, yes, John Yoo wrote a legal opinion saying that warrantless surveillance is perfectly legal. John Yoo also wrote legal opinions that torture is illegal. I believe Congress has been trying to get their hands on the Yoo opinion in order to verify the judgment used.
Oh, and it's not just the President's political enemies. Ashcroft - not exactly famous for defending civil liberties - wouldn't sign off on the legality of the program. Nor would Comey. And whole bunches of senior DoJ officials were preparing resignations. I'm sure you've heard of the Hospital Showdown in March 04.

Oh, and if you think it's not illegal, please see 50 U.S.C. 1809 section a.1.B

You sir, are an IDIOT. Nothing Bush has done has risen to the level that the US Constitution calls for, for an impeachment. Not to mention that you are totally clueless about this wiretapping. U.S. Supreme Court UNITED STATES v. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, 407 U.S. 297 (1972) 407 U.S. 297 UNITED STATES v. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN ET AL. (PLAMONDON ET AL., REAL PARTIES IN INTEREST) CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT No. 70-153. Argued February 24, 1972 Decided June 19, 1972 http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?c ourt=US&vol=407&invol=297 thus finding that the domestic spying against agent or foreign powers operating in the US was INDEED CONSTITUTIONAL!!! So do yourself a major favor and shut up as you are showing your ignorance more by yourself then anything anyone could ever post to prove same. Now go eat your cookies and drink your milk as it is time for you to have your nappy changed and to take a nap.

I am amazed at the complete and total ignorance of people here who are replying and whining and complaining that this wiretapping is illegal and unconstitutional. You people need to get a life and actually read before openning your keyboards on items that you obviously know nothing about. The US Supreme Court gave the Preisdent the right to do this back in the early 1970's under the "Instant" case and not only said that this was legal...but it was in the US Constitutional Presidential Powers to do so and as such NO ONE, not the courts nor the Congress; has the ability to deny the President the power to do this without a Constitutional Amendment, and the chances of you even getting one is less then 0.0000000002% as over 15,000 amendments have come up in over 220 years and less then 30 have been actually voted into law...and one of these was recinded! So read it and weep lefties, as if you have nothing to hide; then what is the fuss about? And if you are not talking to a known terrorist member or group, then you have nothing to worry about. And if you are, then you should be tried under the fullest extent of the law. U.S. Supreme Court UNITED STATES v. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, 407 U.S. 297 (1972) 407 U.S. 297 UNITED STATES v. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN ET AL. (PLAMONDON ET AL., REAL PARTIES IN INTEREST) CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT No. 70-153. Argued February 24, 1972 Decided June 19, 1972 http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?c ourt=US&vol=407&invol=297 thus finding that the domestic spying against agent(s) or foreign power(s) or US Citizens working with or for any foreign power(s) operating in the US and against US policy or against the safety of the US was INDEED CONSTITUTIONAL!!! So please take you whining and complaining somewhere else as you have just had your rear handed to you on a silver platter.

Should the government have the power to compel access to the communication networks and records of a US company or US citizen without a warrant?

To be clear - and I know you know this, but I want to make it clear for others who may not understand - that's not what this addresses. This addresses the monitoring of the entirety of content of communication between parties outside of the United States. This has always been legal and does not require a warrant, never has, and never should.

But to answer your question: if you are speaking of information about records that define only start and end points of a communication, but NOT the content of the communication (e.g., telephone numbers dialed or calls received), such records constitute a "pen register", which does not constitute a search under the Fourth Amendment, and which therefore does not require a warrant (Smith v. Maryland, 442 US 735 (1979)). Similarly, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, often cited as the most liberal appeals court, found that IP addresses visited and to/from addresses on emails (but again, not the content of the communication) constitutes a pen register and therefore does not require a warrant (US v. Forrester (2007)).

On this basis, no, I do not believe that such monitoring legally requires a warrant.

The information has always been there, and they could have recorded it if they liked. So it's nothing new.

On that point, consider yourself pwned.

There is no indication that it is going away.

Either you're a troll, or you haven't been paying attention.

If you have your assets frozen under this order, and you live in the U.S., you can definitely bring legal action against the U.S. government to defend yourself, and even seek compensation.

All existing legal options are still open to you, none of them have been removed. But no new ones are created.

Related to defending yourself in court after your assets have been frozen, you are entitled to request to pay for your defense out of the frozen assets. A description of this is included in:

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?n avby=search&case=/data2/circs/9th/9316961.html

under "B. The Asset Freeze" which states that the court has discretion over whether to grant the request. This case ruling (from the 9th Circuit) includes the statement (with references) "A district court may, within its discretion, forbid or limit payment of attorney fees out of frozen assets."

I'm sure there are many more court cases which involve rulings related to paying for funds out of frozen assets, but that one I cited was the first one I found in my Google search.

Based on some further reading, it appears that in the case I cited and in some other cases, access to frozen funds is primarily restricted based on the "unclean hands" principle -- meaning, basically, if the court believes that the money that was frozen was acquired through underhanded, illegal, harmful, or other "bad" methods, then the court will be unwilling to grant access to those funds. The assumption there seems to be that the money that was frozen may need to be used to reimburse or pay back to people who were taken advantage of during the acquisition of the money.

Anyway, I'm not a lawyer, but the information I've presented was taken from reading legal documents.

As for those (not you specifically) arguing that the government already had this power - The last clause in what I bolded above makes the key distinction there. The government can seize our assets after "due process of law" has played out. Not before. After.

It does not. Without does not necessarily entail before, and there is Supreme Court precedent that is squarely on point -- the government can seize assets before due process of law has played out, so long as it does play out, in certain situations. You will notice an unsuprising similarity betweent the language in the executive order and the language of the following Supreme Court decision:

CALERO-TOLEDO v. PEARSON YACHT LEASING CO., 416 U.S. 663 (1974)

Held:

"This case presents an 'extraordinary' situation in which postponement of notice and hearing until after seizure did not deny due process, since (1) seizure under the statutes serves significant governmental purposes by permitting Puerto Rico to assert in rem jurisdiction over the property in forfeiture proceedings, thereby fostering the public interest in preventing continued illicit use of the property and in enforcing criminal sanctions; (2) preseizure notice and hearing might frustrate the interests served by the statutes, the property seized often being of the sort, as here, that could be removed from the jurisdiction, destroyed, or concealed, if advance notice were given; and (3)... seizure is not initiated by self-interested private parties but by government officials. Pp. 676-680."

Come on now slashdot now that's a pretty distorted article title.

Please tell me how an executive order can overturn the bill of fucking rights? Can you say shitstorm? He'd never get it out the door. Beleive that the president has constitutional lawyers on tap and doing congress' job would overstep the bounds (only Congress can _change_ the Constitution).

Both the XO + the UK article spell out what the tool is and how its used. Admittedly it would stomp on the rights of _CITIZENS_ of the United States as due process is required, especially sec 2c. Of course you can simply add in a step to revoke citizenship of U.S. nationals guilty of treason and you're covered.

Supposing that these tools are only used against _foreign_ "terrorists" as the article states, I don't see the real problem. Interestingly, notice the provision on the 5th: "except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger;" dude the pres is covered (for better or worse) no matter.

Someone needs to change the article's damn title.

is where wikipedia is the weakest, and most prone to being jacked.

Even without viewing the stub, I recommend that any who visit the link take a long hard look at the history versioning, but even that feature can no longer be fully trusted, as methods have been implemented which allow for the removal of versioning entries by just a few of wikipedia's elites.

Of course they promise to only use that memory hole for good, not evil, and only sparingly, when the data carries with it a taint of defamation or slander, which is extra-especially sensitive when it comes to biographical data of persons living.

I immediately wonder how this could possibly apply to information regarding potential conflicts of interests between a sitting vice-president, who has a known predilection to engage in over the top vindictiveness(he may even roll your wife!), and large international corporations, who have skimmed the top of the classes from America's first-tier Law Universities for their law departments' staff.

,p>Then there is the newest trend in abuse of international tort law being played in a despicably unamerican fashion. It gives one great leverage to those whose have at their beck and call as a staff member, a retained English barrister. Contemporary Conservatism whiny relativism offers illuminative irony though, as it seems the Perles were cast a wee bit before the other swine got into the act.

The Wikimedia Foundation, in their vested survival interests, can do little else but fold. Whitewash by any other name is just a blinding.

and we have always been at war against {fill in blank}...

O'Rly?
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?c ourt=US&navby=case&vol=000&invol=01-1757

Held: A law enacted after expiration of a previously applicable limitations period violates the Ex Post Facto Clause when it is applied to revive a previously time-barred prosecution.

Wrong; at least a growing minority courts have held that a EULA, if agreed to by the party installing the software, is a contract enforceable by law. See, e.g., ProCD, Inc. v. Zeidenberg, 86 F.3d 1447 (7th Cir., 1996).

This brings us to the differences between legislative immunity and a pardon. They are substantial. The latter carries an imputation of guilt; acceptance a confession of it. The former has no such imputation or confession.

It is believed that a trial of Richard Nixon, if it became necessary, could not fairly begin until a year or more has elapsed. In the meantime, the tranquility to which this nation has been restored by the events of recent weeks could be irreparably lost by the prospects of bringing to trial a former President of the United States. The prospects of such trial will cause prolonged and divisive debate over the propriety of exposing to further punishment and degradation a man who has already paid the unprecedented penalty of relinquishing the highest elective office of the United States.

Actually, no, the party who was supposed to have first disclosed Ms. Plame's classified identity to Novak, Richard Armitage, was not only well known to Libby, their close friendship goes way back, with Libby representing Armitage in a libel case.

Incidentally, the disclosure of Valerie Plame's identity was not a crime in the first place, which in most cases is the context that predicates a perjury charge (I am not a lawyer,but Rudy Guiliani made this point in the Weekend edition of the Wall Street Journal.)

Right, you are no lawyer, and many who worked for Guiliani when he was prosecutor would make the same claim about him - an attorney in position only. There are a number of federal laws which were violated by the disclosure of Ms. Plame's classified identity: The Espionage Act of 1917, the Intelligence Identities and Protection Act of 1982, and I would strongly submit the National Security Act would be the number one law.

"...it's sending the message "look we're a little bit naughty because we pick locks" as a distraction instead of sending the message that there are evil out of control bastards torturing people to death."

I'd have guess it's "...evil out of control bastards threatening to torture people's children. Yes, independed of the unsubstantiated allegation of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed there's the implied threat of kidnapping someone's family until they do what you want. Particularly, "According to former Bush administration advisor John Yoo, the president has the legal power, in some circumstances, to order that children's testicles be crushed in front of their parents."

Freedoms of speech and press do not permit a State to forbid advocacy of the use of force or of law violation except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action.

With respect to Europe, there are vast differences in free speech rights from one country to the next, with Germany for example being one of the more restrictive countries, for historical reasons. You can't really talk about 'Europe' as a single entity here, even if there are some common provisions, based on the ECHR, EU treaties and so on.

Absolute nonsense:

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;

U.S. Constitution: Article I

Is it any surprise the courts make these sort of decisions?

A few days ago we had an idiot judge (yes, a *judge*) suing cleaners $54M for the emotional stress of losing is pants http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/artic le/2007/06/12/AR2007061201667.html?hpid=moreheadli nes
and hot on the heals of that we had an idiotic ruling by a U.S. Magistrate Judge Jacqueline Chooljian decreeing that RAM shall be archived. And we've got an Attorney General, the #1 lawyer in the country, who smirks "I don't recall" for hours of testimony, then goes back to work and it's business as usual.

The entire judicial legal system is an anachronism. As we've seen, it contains some very clueless (and sometimes downright stupid) people making important decisions. We've got patent law which is way out of control and anti-trust law which might as well not exist at all. The law is written for and sometimes even by corporations like the RIAA and Disney http://writ.news.findlaw.com/commentary/20020305_s prigman.html , in exchange for campaign donations http://consumerist.com/xml/comments/264638 . And lets not forget about hot cups of coffee. The entire legal system is a joke. The problem is people like Judge Pearson, Magistrate Chooljian and Attorney General Gonzales don't know it. They think they're important public officials part of a proud tradition who are loved and admired by the population they rule^H^H^H^Hserve. Suspect many people think otherwise.

Time to turf the whole thing out and start again. I mean, how much worse is this going to get?

At least Americans are lucky they don't like in the former British Empire where you get some senile git wearing a black cape and a powdered wig banging a hammer and glaring at you, and expecting to be taken seriously. "This is my court!" they thunder. If any other public servant did that in their workplace, they'd be taken away for psychiatric assessment.

It is important to get past the "vendor hype." But, where there is smoke, there is often a fire. It is important to blow away the smoke and look at what is really going on. While I am not an attorney, I speak often about the Federal Rules and work very closely with K-12 schools.

First, there actually is no requirement in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure that dictate that anyone has to archive anything. Rather, it says that if an electronic document exists "in the possession, custody, or control of the party" then it must be produced. This phrase is critical. Most people believe that this means that if an employee has a document on their laptop or home computer, then it is within the organizations custody and control, even if it is not physically on site. Therefore, without a centralized archive, organizations would need to do an costly and time-consuming exhaustive search of everyone's system. The conclusion made by most IT people is that a centralized archive is the easiest way to meet the retrieval requirement. It also adds the benefit of storing unedited documents.

There is an exception to the above statement about not keeping documents. The Rules are very specific about "litigation hold" and the need not to destroy potential evidence. (There is a very significant case on this matter, Testa v Wal-Mart Stores.) A central archive can limit liability if a faculty or staff member deletes an item that should have been on litigation hold.

While these rules apply to every organization in the company, schools are concerned because the risk of litigation is so high and they have many requirements. One of the more pervasive requirements that impact almost every school are state open meeting laws, such as the Brown Act in California. It is generally agreed that e-mails among a majority of School Board members are public documents because they constitute a public meeting and must be made available for disclosure to the public and the media.

This is where the FRCP, or its state equivalents, come into play: If a School Board member has an email subject to the open meeting laws on his/her computer, the School Board member is seen as being in "control" of the information in his/her official capacity. Therefore, the IT director would need to get the relevant document. Boy, wouldn't that be easier if the email was on a central source.

Other issues especially interested to school emails involve sex with minors, child pornography, and threats of violence. Many of these became visible to the authorities because of email disclosures. As a result many schools believe that archiving emails AND content monitoring are prudent steps for protecting children.

Several authors argue that some school districts are underfunded and under staffed for the extra work. I must agree. Anything that takes a dollar away from educating a student is a bad thing. However, even small schools should not be exempt from open meeting laws and other litigation. If it matters, small business is effected by this too. The recent case of 245-employee Taser International shows that small companies also must do whatever is necessary to abide by the law.

I have more about this topic on my blog, Death By Email

Horseshit. There's nothing "organically evolved" about the disaster that is US software patent law. There's one ridiculous appellate ruling, from which the rest of this shitstorm has inexorably followed.

The entire history of time until 1998: for the most part, neither algorithms nor business practices are held to be patentable, since they are both held to be "abstract ideas," which are not patentable. There are exceptions, but they are rare.

The State Street ruling, 1998: Hey, let's change the legal test for patentable software from "causing a physical transformation" to producing "useful, concrete and tangible results". Vague enough for ya? Awesome. And while we're at it, let's also apply the same completely meaningless legal test to business practices, too!

The history of software patents since 1998: One patent on Zocor! One patent on Viagra! SIXTEEN patents by Microsoft of movement and positioning of a cursor! Gee whiz, maybe we should fix this problem. Oh, wait... we wouldn't want to "dismantle organically-evolved law from the top-down", because Anonymous Coward says that such actions always result in DISASTER!

"Dismantle organically-evolved law from the top-down". Fantastic. What the hell does that even *mean*?

I find it intriguing that the NHL comes down in favor of placeshifting and MLB comes down against it when they were both in favor of timeshifting. The difference, now, is that MLB has a strong product while the NHL's U.S. audience (not wonderful in the first place) has dwindled to insignificance. If MLB had just come off of another player's strike, you'd bet they'd be in bed with Slingbox, antiquated territorial broadcast rules be damned.

ONE point of view is that they can do NOTHING to ascertain who is talking to whom because they MIGHT be breaking the LAW. ANOTHER point of view is that they should do EVERYTHING they can to ascertain who is talking to whom and know for CERTAIN whether listening violates the LAW.

There appears to be a lot of people who think they have unlimited rights, including the right to line the rest of us up for slaughter.

Why would you want to tax someone without letting them have representation.

A corporation is not a "someone." You and I are each a "someone." Corporations are financial entities established to consolidate and control capital for a specific purpose, pooling responsibility and profitability. At least, they were, until successive dubious interpretations of Santa Clara County v. South Pacific Railroad Company established the legal fiction that a corporation is a person in some important respects.

Isn't that one of the rallying cries of the revolutionary war? No taxation without representation?

Yes, referring to the "natural rights of man." Thomas Jefferson, for example, was certainly no corporatist.

When you tax a company, person or whatever, it should be able to receive representation of some sort. and if this means funding a politician who favors their position, I don't see the difference.

Sorry, but the only method of influence over government provided for by the Constitution is the electoral process. And legal entities are not granted the franchise. That right is reserved by "the people," an entity whose bounds have been increased by the 15th and 19th Amendments.

Other wise, stop taxing them.

Why, because they'll stop using the public and natural resources of the country? The owners and employees of corporations already have the vote. Suggesting that money should equal political power is to deny the role of rights-based democracy in the United States government. There's already a term for a government run by a small, moneyed ruling class, and it ain't "democracy," no matter what the news might want you to believe.

The Macrovision requirement is in section 1201(k) of the DMCA, which specifically refers to "analog video cassette recorders". TiVo doesn't make analog recordings or use cassettes, so the Macrovision requirement doesn't apply.

Now imagine if the supreme court were not permitted to safeguard your "life, liberty or property" because Ron Paul's HR 4379 had explicitly forbidden it in matters of "sexual practices, orientation, or reproduction".

This means that states can now legislate against contraception, abortion and consensual sex. It means that the definition of "privacy" as seen by the courts under the fifth and fourteenth amendements is valid to give you the right to "to marry, establish a home and bring up children", but not to decide how and when to conceive those children.

In short, Ron Paul is a very strange and impractical obstetrician and an even stranger kind of politician. I certainly wouldn't vote for him.